Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[whisperit]

Assuming there was such a thing as "perfect goodness", there's no particular reason to believe that it requires any kind of personal deity. Why would it need a "foundation" deeper than itself?

“Itself� in your statement would thus be the foundation. Where does it reside? In evolution or God creationism?

[10CC]

Assuming there was such a thing as "perfect goodness", there's no particular reason to believe that it requires any kind of personal deity. Why would it need a "foundation" deeper than itself?

“Itself� in your statement would thus be the foundation. Where does it reside? In evolution or God creationism?

Have you provided an OBJECTIVE moral yet that can be examined and discussed?

[whisperit]

In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?

There isn't any foundation, moral values are subjective. I would go futher and argue that if God does exist, and right or wrong is dependently on God then envolking a divine law giver does not actually support the argument for the existence of moral objective values.

Of course, we have objective moral values. It is wrong to kill or to steal or to commit adultery, etc. We have God's law through the Ten Commandments. Were manmade laws formulated from the Ten Commandments? Or do objective moral values reside in some sort of collective moral consciousness residing outside of our mind as an evolutionary process?

You've just proven that those morals are not objective. They are subjective. From whence did they come? I hope you don't claim the mind of god?

Individually held moral values are subjective, although they can be observed from an objective standpoint. For example, you can say killing and stealing is wrong (objective moral value); however, it is justified in certain circumstances (subjective moral value). Objective moral values state killing and stealing are wrong, PERIOD.

[whisperit]

Why is killing and stealing and adultery wrong? Says who?

[10CC]

Why is killing and stealing and adultery wrong? Says who?

Killing, stealing, raping, paedophilia and genocide are all wrong because they harm innocent people. Not because your invisible friend says so. Especially not when your invisible friend actually orders this behaviour and participates in it himself.
How can such a being be the centre of objective morality?

[whisperit]

Why is killing and stealing and adultery wrong? Says who?

Killing, stealing, raping, paedophilia and genocide are all wrong because they harm innocent people. Not because your invisible friend says so. Especially not when your invisible friend actually orders this behaviour and participates in it himself.
How can such a being be the centre of objective morality?

I did not say God is the centre of objective moral values. I posed the question, what is the foundation for objective moral values, God or creationism? Are humans intrinsically good by nature or is God the guiding force. Anyway, I am struggling to articulate my thoughts. I think I will put this thread to rest. Thank you.

[10CC]

Why is killing and stealing and adultery wrong? Says who?

Killing, stealing, raping, paedophilia and genocide are all wrong because they harm innocent people. Not because your invisible friend says so. Especially not when your invisible friend actually orders this behaviour and participates in it himself.
How can such a being be the centre of objective morality?

I did not say God is the centre of objective moral values. I posed the question, what is the foundation for objective moral values, God or creationism? Are humans intrinsically good by nature or is God the guiding force. Anyway, I am struggling to articulate my thoughts. I think I will put this thread to rest. Thank you.

Probably a good idea, since there is no such thing as objective morality. Thanks for talking.

[olavisjo]

.

Probably a good idea, since there is no such thing as objective morality.

• To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/our-gras ... z2gg0n3jlR

Given this definition of objective morality, do you still claim that no such thing exists? You will then be defending the idea that the Nazis did nothing wrong, is this your position?

[10CC]

.

Probably a good idea, since there is no such thing as objective morality.

• To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/our-gras ... z2gg0n3jlR

Given this definition of objective morality, do you still claim that no such thing exists? You will then be defending the idea that the Nazis did nothing wrong, is this your position?

Yes it's a very subjective definition. But try to defend it if you want.

[Bust Nak]

Of course, we have objective moral values. It is wrong to kill or to steal or to commit adultery, etc.

These are not objective in the sense outlined in the OP: something which is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it.

That it is wrong to kill or steal are commonly held moral values, you may argue almostly universally held values. Which none-the-less is dependent on people.

We have God's law through the Ten Commandments. Were manmade laws formulated from the Ten Commandments?

Only for ancient israelites.

Or do objective moral values reside in some sort of collective moral consciousness residing outside of our mind as an evolutionary process?

Or they don't exist.

...Objective moral values state killing and stealing are wrong, PERIOD.

That doesn't match with how "objective" is described by WLC. I would say "killing is wrong except in self defence" is an example of circumstantial morality, and "killing is always wrong" is an example of absolute morality. That is to say, it's an seperate aspect of morality to the objective vs subjective debate.